06/07/2026
The judicial inquiry into the convictions of the Croatian Six has found that a historic miscarriage of justice did exist for three of the six men convicted in 1981, but unfortunately, upheld the convictions of the other three.
An excellent summary of the 850 page two-volume report handed down by Acting Justice Robert Hulme is attached.
Although the nuanced findings of this historic judicial enquiry identified a serious miscarriage of justice occurring in relation to the convictions of unfortunately only 3 of Croatian 6, those that have tirelessly led the good fight can all take further comfort in the knowledge that that as a direct result of this enquiry, there will now be substantial reforms made in the Crimes Act which will help others who have been served poorly by the justice system.
Thank you Branko Miletic and all involved in for your tireless and dedicated efforts to get to this point.
Croatian Six Inquiry Finds Historic Miscarriage of Justice for Three Men While Upholding Convictions of the Other Three
After more than four decades of controversy, allegations of police misconduct and claims of intelligence agency interference, the judicial inquiry into the convictions of the Croatian Six has delivered one of the most significant reviews of a criminal case in New South Wales history.
In a two-volume report running to more than 850 pages, Acting Justice Robert Hulme concluded that there is a reasonable doubt about the guilt of three of the six men convicted in 1981 of conspiring to carry out a series of bomb attacks across Sydney. He referred the convictions of Ilija Kokotovic, Joseph Kokotovic and the late Mile Nekic to the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal for consideration of whether they should be quashed. However, he found that the evidence did not create a reasonable doubt concerning the guilt of Maksimilian Bebic, Vjekoslav Brajkovic and Anton Zvirotic.
The findings bring a nuanced conclusion to one of Australia's longest-running miscarriage of justice campaigns. Rather than vindicating or condemning the prosecution in its entirety, the Inquiry found that some longstanding criticisms were justified while others were not.
The Croatian Six were convicted in February 1981 after a trial lasting almost ten months. Prosecutors alleged the group had conspired to bomb two travel agencies, a Serbian social club, the Elizabethan Theatre and Sydney's water supply pipeline. Each received a 15-year prison sentence and ultimately served between seven and eight years before their release. Appeals were unsuccessful, as were earlier attempts to secure a judicial inquiry into the convictions. The present Inquiry was ordered in 2022 following renewed applications under the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act.
Justice Hulme's Inquiry revisited virtually every aspect of the original investigation. Over 90,000 pages of documents were obtained from government agencies, including previously classified Commonwealth material, while the Inquiry heard evidence over 43 hearing days from former police officers, public servants and civilian witnesses. Archived ASIO records, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet files and extensive trial material enabled a far broader examination than had previously been possible.
A central focus of the Inquiry was the role of police informant Vico Virkez, whose evidence proved crucial at trial and who has long been the subject of controversy. The report examined whether Virkez acted simply as an informant, as an intelligence asset or as an agent provocateur, and explored his relationships with the Yugoslav Consulate and Yugoslav intelligence organisations. The Inquiry also investigated whether information concerning those relationships was withheld from the defence during the trial and subsequent appeals.
Justice Hulme accepted that Virkez had secretly provided information to Yugoslav authorities before the arrests and that his connections with the Yugoslav Consulate were far more substantial than was known at the time of trial. The Inquiry found that important information concerning those relationships was not available to the defence, raising legitimate concerns about the fairness of the proceedings. The report devotes extensive chapters to analysing what Commonwealth agencies knew about Virkez, when they knew it and whether relevant information was disclosed.
However, the Inquiry stopped short of endorsing the broader allegation that the entire prosecution had been manufactured by Yugoslav intelligence. Justice Hulme carefully analysed competing theories that Virkez had acted as an agent provocateur or had fabricated the conspiracy itself. While identifying serious questions about aspects of his conduct and credibility, the report ultimately rejected several of the more sweeping claims advanced over the decades.
The conduct of NSW Police formed another major pillar of the Inquiry. Against the backdrop of later findings by the Police Royal Commission concerning corruption, fabricated confessions, "verbals", "load ups" and other improper investigative practices, Justice Hulme scrutinised the arrests, interviews, searches and seizure of explosives in extraordinary detail. Individual assessments were undertaken for each accused, examining allegations of assault, the reliability of admissions and the integrity of physical evidence.
The report found that some police conduct attracted criticism and that aspects of the investigation were unsatisfactory. It also acknowledged deficiencies in the disclosure of material relevant to Virkez and examined whether evidence had been withheld from the defence. Nevertheless, the Inquiry did not conclude that police had fabricated the entire case or systematically planted evidence against all six accused.
Instead, Justice Hulme distinguished carefully between the evidence relating to different defendants. The strongest consequence of that approach was his conclusion that there was a reasonable doubt concerning the convictions of the Burwood trio—Ilija Kokotovic, Joseph Kokotovic and Mile Nekic. In their cases, the cumulative effect of concerns surrounding Virkez, police evidence and the available proof left the Inquiry unable to maintain confidence in the verdicts. By contrast, the evidence against Bebic, Brajkovic and Zvirotic remained sufficient, in the Inquiry's assessment, to exclude a reasonable doubt.
The Inquiry also considered broader institutional issues extending beyond the criminal trial itself. It examined the response of Commonwealth agencies to subpoenas, questions of legal privilege, interdepartmental meetings concerning Virkez and whether documentary material had been withheld or lost over time. Although not every allegation was substantiated, the report concludes that disclosure failures deprived the defence of information that may have been significant in challenging the prosecution's principal witness.
Justice Hulme further recommended reforms to the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act. He proposed removing restrictions that prevent inquiry judges exercising certain coercive powers available under the Royal Commissions Act and suggested that the legislation governing criminal conviction inquiries be redrafted in a clearer and more accessible form. Those recommendations reflect difficulties encountered during the Inquiry in obtaining evidence and exercising investigative powers.
The report represents neither the complete exoneration sought by campaigners nor an endorsement of every aspect of the original prosecution. Instead, it presents a carefully calibrated reassessment grounded in thousands of pages of evidence and modern access to government archives. It recognises that historical intelligence activities, incomplete disclosure and contested police practices complicated one of Australia's most politically sensitive criminal prosecutions, while also concluding that the available evidence differed significantly between individual defendants.
The next chapter in the Croatian Six saga now rests with the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, which will consider whether the convictions of Ilija Kokotovic, Joseph Kokotovic and Mile Nekic should be quashed. Whatever the court ultimately decides, Justice Hulme's report has already reshaped understanding of a case that has occupied Australian legal, political and historical debate for more than 45 years. It confirms that serious questions about fairness and disclosure did exist, identifies a miscarriage of justice in relation to three men, and closes one of the nation's most contentious criminal inquiries with findings that are both measured and consequential.
Read the full Inquiry reports here: Volume 1:https://croatiansixinquiry.dcj.nsw.gov.au/documents/home-page/report-of-the-inquiry-into-the-convictions-of-the-croatian-six-volume-1.pdf
Volume 2:https://croatiansixinquiry.dcj.nsw.gov.au/documents/home-page/report-of-the-inquiry-into-the-convictions-of-the-croatian-six-volume-2.pdf
